Ayesha Mukherjee had fraudulently extorted crores of rupees from Shikhar Dhawan! Court ordered to return Rs 5.7 crore
New Delhi: Delhi’s Patiala House Court has ordered former cricketer Shikhar Dhawan’s ex-wife Ayesha Mukherjee to return Rs 5.7 crore. The court said the money came from an Australian property deal, which was obtained through threats, extortion and fraud. Judge Devendra Kumar Garg declared all the settlement documents invalid.
Threat to ruin cricket career
Shikhar Dhawan told the court that shortly after the marriage, Ayesha threatened to ruin his reputation and cricket career. He said he bought properties with his own earnings, but Ayesha forced him to register them either in joint names or solely in her own name. Ayesha was shown as 99 percent owner of a property. After looking at the evidence, the court accepted Dhawan’s claims as true.
Australian court order canceled
The Australian court had divided the couple’s assets between 2021 and 2024. Ayesha got 15 percent of the total property. He kept assets worth Rs 7.46 crore and acquired an additional Rs 15.95 crore and a property from Dhawan.
The Delhi court had stayed the implementation of these orders in February 2024. Now the court clearly said that the Australian court has no right to decide on Indian matrimonial disputes. Ayesha will also have to pay 9 percent annual interest on this amount from the date of filing of the case.
Divorce and custody of son
The Delhi court had divorced both of them in 2023. The court found that Ayesha kept Dhawan away from his son Zoravar for years, which caused mental trauma to Dhawan. Ayesha did not respond properly to these allegations.
Dhawan did not get permanent custody of his son, but was given visitation and video call rights in India and Australia. Later Ayesha completely banned the conversation.
Shikhar Dhawan married for the second time
Shikhar Dhawan married Sophie Shine for the second time in a private ceremony on 22 February 2025. This decision has come as a big relief for Dhawan, because he has got justice in the long-running legal dispute.
Comments are closed.